https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158014 State entry tax competence under Entry 52 of List II was upheld because the legislative field is broad and revenue purpose alone does not negate power, but the levy failed under Articles 301 and 304(b) as it was not shown to be compensatory or regulatory and operated as a general fiscal burden impeding free trade. The absence of prior Presidential approval did not save the levy because assent was later obtained. The proviso to section 3 and section 6 were also struck down under Article 14 because they conferred unguided discretion to fix rates or grant exemptions without intelligible standards. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:09:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158014 State entry tax competence under Entry 52 of List II was upheld because the legislative field is broad and revenue purpose alone does not negate power, but the levy failed under Articles 301 and 304(b) as it was not shown to be compensatory or regulatory and operated as a general fiscal burden impeding free trade. The absence of prior Presidential approval did not save the levy because assent was later obtained. The proviso to section 3 and section 6 were also struck down under Article 14 because they conferred unguided discretion to fix rates or grant exemptions without intelligible standards. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158014